There are many "ifs and buts" in this tragic case of the unnecessary death of a teenager.

IF GZ had not profiled TM, TM would be alive today.

IF TM, after noticing that GZ was following by car, had taken the good advice of his girlfriend and gone straight home to the townhouse at which he and his father were staying, TM would be alive today.

IF GZ had followed the non-emergency police dispatcher's good advice not to leave his car and follow TM, TM would be alive today.

IF TM, after noticing that GZ was following him by foot, had gone straight home, TM would be alive today.

IF GZ had made it clear that he was a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, and if TM had accepted that information and avoided a physical confrontation, TM would be alive today.

IF TM had not sucker-punched GZ, TM would be alive today.

IF TM had run away after punching GZ, instead of continuing the fight and causing two lacerations on the back of GZ's head, TM would be alive today.

IF GZ had not shot TM in the chest, TM would be alive today.

IF GZ had not shot TM, GZ might have sustained severe bodily harm, or even death.

Much has been made of the fact that "TM did nothing illegal". Yes, TM had every right to purchase candy and a soft drink and wear a hoodie while he walked home in the light rain of the early evening through the gated community where he and his father were visiting. He had no obligation to dress differently or to run home or change his plans when he noticed he was being observed and followed, first by car and then by foot. TM had every right to be there. He had every right to verbally challenge GZ when they approached each other along the dark concrete walk behind the two rows of townhomes.

Indeed, TM did nothing illegal until he sucker-punched GZ. That is what started the physical part of the confrontation. That is what led to the injury to GM's nose and, ultimately, lacerations to the back of GZ's head. The evidence of the eye witness Jonathan Good makes it clear that TM was beating the heck out of GZ. The forensic evidence shows that all the injuries of the fight were suffered by GZ, except for two light cuts on TM's knuckles (and, sadly, the fatal gunshot wound).

On the other hand, GZ did nothing illegal either! According to available evidence, GZ had every right to profile TM and report him as a suspicious person to the non-emergency police number. He was not legally required to follow the dispatcher's good advice that "we don't need you to do that" when he said he was going to follow TM.

According to TM's friend Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with him at the first visual encounter, she urged him to run to the townhouse where he was staying, but TM did not follow that good advice. Furthermore, she testified that when TM and GZ came within talking distance in the dark behind the two rows of townhomes, TM verbally challenged GZ, saying "What are you following me for?" According to her account, GZ returned the challenge with "What are you doing around here?" (GZ's version of the verbal encounter also has TM challenging first, saying "You got a f---ing problem, homie?",GZ replying "No", and TM following up with "You got a problem now" and punching GZ in the nose.).

According to the closest eye witness to the physical encounter, Jonathan Good, GZ got the worst of the fight, calling for "Help" with TM on top of him.

GZ could have submitted to the beating. Had he done so, both GZ and TM would most likely be alive today. On the other hand, the way things were going, GZ might have suffered serious head injury or even death. We will never know.

But GZ did not submit to the beating. Reasonably fearing for his life (or serious bodily injury), GZ drew his handgun and shot TM in the chest. According to the forensic evidence, when the fatal shot was fired, the gun barrel was touching TM's clothing, but the clothing was two to four inches away from TM's skin, indicating that TM was on top and facing downwards, with gravity pulling the clothing down and away from his skin..

Alternative Scenario Where TM is Totally Innocent

Although I generally accept GZ's account of the incident (with some reservations about his claim that he walked past the dark area behind the two rows of houses because he was looking for a street name and an address to provide to the police dispatcher), I have searched my imagination for a scenario that fits all the available testimony and forensics and that shows TM totally innocent. I stretched my brain to come up with the following:

TM purchases candy and a soft drink and, while walking home, he notices GZ stop his car, look at him suspiciously, roll up his windows, and make a cellphone call. TM is also on his cellphone with his young lady friend and tells her that GZ looks like a "crazy ass cracker".

Although he is close to the townhome where he and his father are visiting, TM does not go directly home because he is fearful that GZ may be a sexual predator or otherwise dangerous and that he will track him there and possibly cause trouble. So, TM runs to the dark area behind the two rows of townhomes and hides there.

GZ, walking and searching in the dark area with the aid of a flashlight, slips on the rain-soaked grass, landing face-first on the concrete walk (or a hard plastic sprinkler cover or a tree branch). This accounts for the injuries to GZ's nose.

As GZ struggles to his feet, he notices TM hiding in the shadows. GZ angrily challenges TM and grabs him in a bear hug. TM cries for "help" and tries to get away. In the struggle, they fall down, with GZ striking the back of his head against the concrete walk (or other hard object). This accounts for the lacerations on the back of GZ's head and the eyewitness report of TM being on top.

TM manages to break GZ's bear hug grip and pulls himself up, preparing to run away. At that point, with TM still on top, GZ draws his gun and shoots TM in the chest, killing him.

Although the above scenario is possible, it does not appear as reasonable as the defense account. In any case, GZ had to be judged "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", and there are many reasonable doubts about the scenario I sketched!

Does "Stand Your Ground" Apply To This Case?

The common law version of self-defense allows a person who is challenged by another person, in their own home, to use deadly force if they reasonably fear death or great bodily harm, even if it would be safe to retreat. However, if in their vehicle or public place, there is a duty to retreat if it would be safe to do so.

The Stand Your Ground extension to the law of self-defense expands the concept to vehicles and public places. Thus, under Stand Your Ground, a person who is challenged, in their vehicle or public place, does not have a duty to retreat, even if it would be safe to do so, but may use deadly force against the person challenging them, if they reasonably fear death or great bodily harm.

Much has been made of Stand Your Ground in the Zimmerman/Martin case, but it does not seem to apply. Once the physical confrontation started, and GZ was getting the worst of it, he no longer had the option to retreat, safely or otherwise. At that point, if he reasonably feared death or great bodily harm, he had the right to use deadly force. (It is true that Zimmerman's defense team initially requested a Stand Your Ground hearing, but later decided to bypass that hearing and go to a jury trial.)

Was George Zimmerman a Racist?

There is no doubt in my mind that GZ profiled TM, using a combination of what he was doing, where he was, how he was dressed, the fact that he was a young man, and ... YES ... the fact that he was black. In other words, TM fit the profile of the young black men who had recently been observed committing burglaries and a home invasion in the gated community.

But, GZ was not any more of a racist than any of the rest of us. I think it is an undisputed fact that most of we Americans (sadly including black Americans who are more often the victims of urban crime than white Americans) are more suspicious of young black men than they would be of young white men, and more suspicious of young men of any race than they would be of older men or of women of any age.

In fact, there is reason to believe that GZ was actually less of a racist than most of we Americans. His voter registration lists him as Hispanic and a Democrat. His mother, from Peru, has both Hispanic and black ancestry. His next-door neighbor in the gated community was a black woman who praised him as a good friend. According to the local ABC TV station, "George Zimmerman accused the Sanford police department of corruption more than a year before he shot Trayvon Martin, saying at a public forum the agency covered up the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white officer." (http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/05/zimmerman-publicly-accused-sanford-police-of-corruption-in-2011-76322.html#ixzz2ZYfvmxDM)

Thursday, July 4, 2013

In recent months, the Obama administration has been plagued by several serious controversies, chief among them:

Charges of political profiling by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in delaying the approval of tax exemption under § 501 (c)(4) to some "patriotic" organizations, and

Large-scale domestic snooping by the National Security Agency (NSA) according to Top Secret documents leaked by Edward Snowden.

You may download my PowerPoint presentation (Philosophy Club, The Villages, FL, 5 July 2013) here: https://sites.google.com/site/bigira/philosophy-related-pps/Philo%20IRS%20NSA%20July%202013.pptx?attredirects=0&d=1IRS POLITICAL PROFILING CONTROVERSYAccording to the May 2013 report by the US Treasury Department Inspector General (IG) for Tax Administration (.pdf available here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/05/201310053fr-revised-redacted-1.pdf ), starting in 2010 and continuing through 2012 and two election cycles, "inappropriate criteria were used to identify tax-exempt applications for review". The IG Report identified some specific inappropriate criteria including "Patriots", "Tea Party", "Issues include government spending, government debt or taxes", "Education of the public by advocacy/lobbying 'to make America a better place to live'", and "Statement in the case file criticize how the country is being run". [exact quotes, including grammatical errors]The result was that some applications submitted by Liberal groups were approved for § 501 (c)(4) while otherwise identical applications by Conservative groups were forwarded to a team of "specialists" and thus delayed for years.According to the IG Report:

Organizations that applied for tax-exempt status and had their applications forwarded to the team of specialists experienced substantial delays. As of December 17, 2012, many organizations had not received an approval or denial letter for more than two years after they submitted their applications. Some cases have been open during two election cycles (2010 and 2012). [my bold]

On 13 May 2013, a day before the IG Report was issued, President Obama stated that the practice was "Outrageous, if true."The next day, when it was clear that the charges were indeed true, Obama followed up stating:

"The IRS must apply the law in a fair and impartial way, and its employees must act with utmost integrity.

“This report shows that some [IRS] employees failed that test. I’ve directed Secretary Lew to hold those responsible for these failures accountable, … so that such conduct never happens again.

“But regardless of how this conduct was allowed to take place, the bottom line is, it was wrong."

The IG Report included a detailed list of some of the "unnecessary" questions asked of targeted organizations by the "specialists" to delay approval.

1 Requests the names of donors.
2 Requests a list of all issues that are important to the organization and asks that
the organization indicate its position regarding such issues.
3 Requests 1) the roles and activities of the audience and participants other than
members in the activity and 2) the type of conversations and discussions
members and participants had during the activity.
4 Asks whether the officer, director, etc., has run or will run for public office.
5 Requests the political affiliation of the officer, director, speakers, candidates
supported, etc., or otherwise refers to the relationship with identified
political party–related organizations.
6 Requests information regarding employment, other than for the organization,
including hours worked.
7 Requests information regarding activities of another organization – not just
the relationship of the other organization to the applicant.

As the IG Report makes clear, § 501 (c)(3) organizations may NOT "engage in political campaign intervention" while § 501 (c)(4) groups may do so up to 40% of their activities. Another difference is that contributions to § 501 (c)(3) groups ARE tax deductible by the donors while § 501 (c)(4) are NOT tax deductible by the donors.

The House Ways and Means Democrats include one example of a "Tea Party" group that appears on an IRS spreadsheet, but careful observation shows that that line applies to BOTH § 501 (c)(3) and § 501 (c)(4) groups. It should be obvious that tax exemption should not be allowed for donors for any "political campaign intervention", whether Liberal or Conservative.

Thus, there is no evidence that "Progressive" groups were subjected to any profiling related to § 501 (c)(4), while it is clear, even from the IRS spreadsheet example published by the Democrats, that such profiling was inappropriately applied to Conservative groups.

Should ANY "Political" Organizations Enjoy BOTH Tax-Exemption AND Anonymity for their Donors?

In reviewing this controversy, I wondered why the IRS allows MAJOR DONORS to make ANONYMOUS contributions to ANY tax-exempt organization that engages in any form of "political campaign intervention" (be it Liberal or Conservative) .

Well, it turns out that this strange rule dates from the 1958 Supreme Court decision regarding the NAACP vs Alabama (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Alabama) where the Supremes ruled that disclosure of names could render private donors vulnerable to retaliation.

OK, if that is the Law of the Land, so be it, but it should be applied EQUALLY to both Liberal and Conservative groups. Don't you think?

In this case, IRS political profiling, targeting Conservative groups, over two election cycles (2010 and 2012), has almost certainly resulted in a net benefit for Liberal organizations in terms of fund-raising, because some donors will justifiably hesitate to contribute to any organization that has not been approved by the IRS for tax-exempt status.

Has this affected election results at the National level (House, Senate, Presidency), and/or local levels (Governors, State Legislators, etc.)? No one will ever know for sure, but I would think at least some close elections could have gone the other way absent IRS targeting of Conservative "political campaign intervention" groups.

NSA SNOOPING CONTROVERSY

Which brings us to the second part of this (admittedly long) topic posting.

The reason I have linked the IRS and NSA controversies should be painfully obvious:

If any Administration, whether Democrat or Republican, misuses an agency of the government for political profiling purposes, as the Democrats have clearly misused the IRS for two election cycles, how can we trust them not to similarly misuse the awesome snooping powers we now know have been entrusted to the NSA ?

We all know that Edward Snowden, an employee of an NSA contractor, went to Hong Kong (controlled by China) and released several TOP SECRET documents revealing that the NSA has engaged in large-scale domestic snooping. There is no doubt that all TOP SECRET materials contained on the laptop computers and other computer media he had with him have been downloaded by the Chinese and are now in their possession. Snowden subsequently went to Russia, and has been there long enough for the Russians to have downloaded all material he had with him. Also, there is no doubt that both the Chinese and Russians have interrogated Snowden thoroughly and extracted the critical TOP SECRET NSA information that he possessed. After the NSA leak was made public by Snowden, President Obama assured the American public:

“… nobody is listening to your telephone calls…

“… you can't have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society…

Please note that I have bolded the President's word "Nobody". Does that mean noperson is listening to our telephone calls (and that no person is reading our emails and other computer communications)? For example, what if some automatic computer program was listening to our telephone calls (and emails) and searching for some combinations of words that might indicate criminal or terroristic intent? And, only if and when the computer program discovered some suspicious messages and identified the people involved, then the NSA went to the FISA court to get a warrant to have some person listen to phone calls (and emails) to and from the identified persons?I have also bolded and italicized the word "is". As President Bill Clinton famously observed, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Is Obama assuring us that nobody is listening to our phone calls (and emails) right now? What if our phone calls (and emails) are being automatically recorded and stored away by the NSA for future use if and when subsequent analysis reveals that they may relate to suspicious activities and then the NSA gets a FISA warrant to have some person listen to them?
That said, I agree with Obama that we cannot expect "100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience" and maintain reasonable security against criminal and terrorist attacks. Like him, given this difficult choice, I come down on the side of security.

What do we know about NSA snooping?

Started as early as 2006 (under G.W. Bush), continued through present (2008-2013 under Obama).

Key members of Senate and Congress are aware of classified details of NSA programs and exercise oversight. Judicial oversight is exercised by FISA court.

I’ve worked on classified military projects, but never NSA projects or any projects related to surveillance or data mining, so I am free to “speculate” without revealing classified information.

Based on my knowledge of electronics and computers and the Internet and “artificial intelligence” I never type anything into my computer that I would not mind seeing on the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper or TV news!

For many years I have suspected that NSA (not to mention Google :^) has metadata on all Internet activity and phone calls and that they utilize advanced data mining algorithms to associate Phone numbers, Email addresses, Blogs, Social networks, and so on.

It is also likely they use “artificial intelligence” and “key word analysis” computer techniques to “gist” voice phone calls, looking for languages and word combinations that may indicate criminal or terrorist activities as well as semantic analysis to identify individual writing styles.
It is also likely they similarly “gist” Emails, Blogs, Photos and other Internet data and use facial recognition, voice prints, and other biometrics to associate multi-modal communications with particular groups of people and individuals.

Bottom Line

I (along with Obama) am appalled that Edward Snowden violated his pledge to protect classified government documents.
Internal government processes (and specialized lawyers) exist for reporting abuses. Snowden should have used these before going to China and before revealing these Top Secret activities to the press. (Hong Kong is an “autonomous” region under the control of China.)
We should assume China and Russia have all Snowden’s NSA data.

I generally SUPPORT all the known and most of my suspected NSA snooping activities, assuming proper oversight.
As I’ve stated in presentations to The Villages Philosophy Club and my Novel and Blogs, advocates of “privacy” are fighting a phony and lost battle. If you have a home and a job and a credit card and a cellphone and a car – in other words if you are a “respectable” citizen – YOU HAVE NO “PRIVACY”. (The only person with real privacy is the guy using your stolen credit card to buy stuff!)

However, the IRS scandal has increased my distrust of the government. I worry that POLITICALLY-motivated NSA employees may abuse Phone and Internet data for partisan purposes (as some IRS employees have done).

Get the PowerPoint Presentation!

If you'd like more technical background on the "six degrees of separation" between (virtually) any two people on Earth and on the issue of privacy in the Internet age, please download the PowerPoint presentation I gave to the Philosophy Club of The Villages, FL.

DILBERT is the story of Ira's life!

Climate Change (Global Warming?)

There is historical evidence that decades of low sunspot activity have coincided with periods of unusually cool global climates. We may be entering such a period. Click Sunspot Postings for Ira's speculations on this critical topic.

Description: This is Ira Glickstein's personal blog. However, you may join the list of Authorized Authors who may post Comments and new Topics.

Sunspot Cycle #23 was supposed to end early in 2007 but it did not hit bottom till 2009. Actual Smoothed counts for last part of #23 and first part of #24 are in Blue in the above graph. Latest NOAA prediction is in Red.

In 2006, NASA/NOAA predicted the peak to be between 180 and 156, expected to occur in early-2012. Latest predictions: NOAA says 90, NASA (Hathaway) says 59. In early 2009, when NASA was predicting 104 to occur in 2012, Ira predicted #24 to peak at 80 in July 2013. Ira's latest prediction, in late 2010, is a peak of 60.

Low counts are good news. If they continue for several cycles, we may be in for a few decades of global temperature stabilization or even a bit of cooling. That will give us some time to solve the issue of rapidly rising carbon gasses that contribute to warming.

BLOG GUIDELINES

Express your opinions forcefully. Collegial cross-discussion is encouraged. Use logical, fact-based arguments. Stick to the subject of the main topic. No political or religious diatribes. No personal attacks on others. No chain letters.

Participation levels:

LURKER - Anyone with web access may read this Blog.

COMMENTER- Anyone with a Google account may post a Comment to any existing Topic thread. Unless you are an Author (see below) your Comment will not appear on the Blog for a day or two until I approve it.

AUTHOR - An Author may initiate new Topics and have their Comments instantly appear without my further approval. [To become an Author, send an email to Ira Glickstein at Ira@techie.com with your name, email, and brief bio.]

New Topics should be carefully written, as if you were planning to give them as a presentation at a club meeting. Please sign Topics with your full name.

NOTE: This Blog is not officially associated with the Philosophy Club of The Villages, FL. However, current and former members of that organization are invited to participate.

Curb Your Enthusiasm - Fantasy Episodes

My brother and I are members of the "cult" that enjoys Curb Your Enthusiasm, the HBO comedy series about to enter its seventh season.

Although our political viewpoints are different, I think Larry David, who created and stars in Curb, and previously co-created Seinfeld, is a comedy genius. Here is the link to the fan Blog I created

WHY DID I CREATE THE BLOG?

Some years ago, while asembling a wooden cabinet, I had a disastrous experience. I got too cocky and made a mistake that caused the partially-built cabinet to collapse "like a house of cards". It was deeply disturbing at the time, but is hilarious in retrospect.

That experience inspired me to write a story concept where Larry David, who portrays himself in Curb as a clutz when it comes to manual skills, is shamed into tackling a do-it-yourself project. In my story idea he, in his inept way, ends up doing a better job than an expert cabinet maker.

Since Larry David does not accept story ideas from the general public, my story outline has mouldered away on a computer disk in my closet somewhere. After a visit by my brother reignited my passion for Curb, I decided to resurrect the story idea and "free" it on the Internet.

Here are some short highlight clips of past seasons of Curb and a tickler for the seventh season as well as a trailer for a Woody Allen movie staring Larry David.

2052 - The Hawking Plan

2052 - The Hawking Plan is Ira's free online novel. Please read it and pass it on!
Stephanie Goldenrod strives to save human life and civilization for an infinite future. Amorality, amore and deep ethical and philosophical issues.
What will life, liberty and technology be like several decades in the future?
Click here for PREDICTIONS - How technology will affect life and liberty in future decades.

A peaceful world where large-scale military conflict is absent.

A political economy dominated and effectively ruled by transnational corporations.

A civilization where reason is trusted and faith is suspect.

A "positive ID" regime where religion-based terrorism has been suppressed, along with virtually all anonymity and privacy.

A society where most people, including ministers, priests and rabbis are not literal believers.

A post global warming world where humanity has been decimated by genetic engineering disasters.

A population served by Intelligent Robotic Agents, certified intelligent at the average human level.

A brilliant plan to spread human life and civilization far and wide into space as insurance against further disasters here on Earth. 2052 - The Hawking Plan

ALSO PUBLISHED BY IRA
Several "Knols" (bits of knowledge) on Google's Knol platform. Some are a bit technical but should be accessible by a general audience:

Exercise in Bed - Do Your 4's! Some easy exercises you can do in four minutes flat in bed.
Do some easy exercises in bed morning and evening. Energize yourself for the day. Relax yourself for some solid sleep every evening. If you do this every day for 120 years I guarantee you will live long :^)

Optimal Span What is the most effective span for a hierarchical structure? For example, Management Span of Control is optimally between 6 and 7...

Quantifying Brooks Mythical Man-Month Brooks Law states: “Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.” This Law is applicable to any task involving lots of people in complex interaction...

Bayesian AI Advisor Bayes Theorem has practical applications. Use it to make real world decisions. A relatively simple Excel-based tool helps you choose the right course of action in the face of uncertain probabilities and inexact test results. It is available for FREE.

Decision Aiding Tool - Do a Trade Study Choose the Best out of a set of attractive Alternatives. Buying a house, car, pet or PC; choosing a course of action at work? Here is how to get everyone involved and make a rational choice. A relatively simple and FREE Excel-based tool helps you make the right decision, including decisions in the face of uncertainty!

Aristotle's Physics - The Four Causes How would Aristotle have used computer graphics to depict his ideas about the Four Causes (Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final)? Written ca. 350 BC, his ideas appear primitive by our 21st Century standards but they capture the wisdom of the ages. The plain text is inadequate for modern understanding - graphics explain his concepts more clearly to a contemporary audience.

Nash Bargain Advisor. John Nash won the 1994 Nobel in Economics for his work on what came to be known as "Nash Equilibrium", where two or more competing entities "cooperate" (without illegally colluding) to reach a "Nash Bargain". The book and movie "A Beautiful Mind" dramatized Nash's life story and work. A relatively simple Excel-based tool helps you calculate a Nash Bargain in a competitive situation. It is available for FREE.

Causality and Determinism

Morality, Ethics, and Religion

A series of Topics related to traditional religion as compared to other systems of ethics and morality. This includes the affect of traditional religion on politics, comparison of atheism, theism, deism, pantheism and various organized religious denominations, etc. .